tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7930466.post109810967861031639..comments2023-08-23T17:36:32.543+07:00Comments on Discussion about 09/11/2001: Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme CourtAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14630840126773177630noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7930466.post-1098111597576172302004-10-18T21:59:00.000+07:002004-10-18T21:59:00.000+07:00I saw this in the NY Times but, obviously, can't c...I saw this in the NY Times but, obviously, can't comment there. I imagine such an America to be a land where democracy works and the people decide. You assume the people are not smart or wise enough to make such decisions so a judicial elite must decide for them. Are a few judges necessarily smarter and wiser than a collective democracy? Surely not when the Supreme Court endorsed such things as slavery and eugenics. Yes, judges can be wrong, and, yes, the populace can be wrong. But if we are to err on one side or the other, my bet is on democracy because I fear such unchecked power concentrated in a few--just as you do in your complaint here. Politics aside, then, the fundamental questions are who gets to decide and why, and beyond that, on what basis are such decisions to be made, which is another question for another time. You present us with a false dilemma: judges pursuing one idealogy or judges pursuing another idealogy. How about judges who promote no idealogy, let us pursue our own agendas, and then adjuciate when my idealogy bumps into yours. That sounds like true democracy to me.Mauricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06053618533129239357noreply@blogger.com